Hi Oldfox
Not at all, it was always my contention that it was about political scandal from the very first word. You're other voice was the one intent to redirect the points and purpose into something it was never about when I was asked many posts back what I considered scandal. I hadnt set any rule and agreed that the variables issues made it impossible to do so. So:::it was always and is about ratios of scandal. The variables were questions tossed at ME::: I'm sure by now that what ever falls to the floor, you'll call it flawed and pointless unless it makes my comment enormously wrong. If so::: I'll accept that what I was told was wrong, have my crow pie and bow to the republican authority. You/they/them/he/she are the wave behind "some rules adjustment." It's maintained by me and won't change, Political scandals, simple no outside the issue rule as it were. If that involves some parasitic hosts from the citizenry, then it does, but until the Kenneth Lay, as to say Enron scandal came up in a point to eliminate a whole scandal by one of you. There were no rules issues. The Enron thing was to clarify that the public can be counted when involved in a political scandal that happens to be a Bush scar. How that become some plea doesn't make your case. Proof? besides an extensive bibliography, history speaks for it's self.
So, what have we got to lose if as you say, "there have been about as many scandals on both sides." I'm then wrong, get to eat crow and You/they/them/he/she will be pleased and have a bigger laugh.
Lucy
Slow down. Breathe deeply. Mellllooooooooow.
There. Now go back and read what you posted, and see if it makes as little sense to you in a calm state as it did to me.
Melllllllllllllllllllloooooooowwww..
